DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2026 has been made record of and considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-12, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 06/30/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to claims 3 and 13-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of 06/30/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 13-19, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9, 11, 17, and 19-20 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 10, 12-16, and 18 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the amendments of 11/28/2025, which change the scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "flying along the object." The specification states, “The recording unit may be a drone”, however, claim 8 recites “wherein the recording unit is a drone or a measuring device in combination with a drone,” which implies that the ‘recording unit’ of claim 1 may not be a drone or a device in combination with a drone. It is unclear to the Examiner how the recording unit has the capability of flight without corresponding drone structure.
Similarly, claim 19 recites the limitation “a measuring device which forms a recording unit alone or in combination with a drone, the measuring device being configured: to fly along the object.” In the case that a measuring device forms a recording device alone, it is unclear how the recording device is capable of flight. Further, this wording seems to define the ‘recording unit’ as simply an imaging sensor. Appropriate correction is required.
NOTE: See Summary, “The recording unit may be a drone having a detection unit, or a corresponding module for a drone (p. 3). … The system comprises a measuring device which forms a recording unit alone or in combination with a drone (p. 4)… the recording unit is a drone, or a measuring device in combination with a drone (p. 7)”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 11-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fathi (US 2020/0082168 A1), in further view of Zhou (CN106762451A).
Consider claims 1 and 19, Fathi discloses a method/system for detecting an object describable by a plurality of predetermined features (¶30, 113), the method comprising:
(a) flying along the object and detecting several portions of the object using at least one recording unit, in order to obtain image sets (¶73; “the data acquisition plan can include a data capture plan, such as a UAV capture plan (flight route, number of images acquired, sensor characteristics etc.)”; ¶188, 190; “a UAV can be flown to and around the cellular tower transmission structure to capture a plurality of overlapping images thereof”), wherein each of the portions is detected multiple times from different positions of the recording unit to generate a set of images of the image sets, wherein position and location information of the recording unit are associated to each image (¶131, 188; “a UAV can be flown to and around the cellular tower transmission structure to capture a plurality of overlapping images thereof”; ¶150-153; “The processing pipeline in this scenario can utilize the RGB imagery and the metadata attached to each image (i.e., location and orientation of the camera from GPS and gimbal readings) in order to establish correspondence among imagery and identify/label objects … The capture plan can include flight plan … that contains geographical coordinates and orientations of a series of locations that the drone needs to fly and gather data. This could be a combination of vertical and orbit patterns that would better provide multiple viewpoints to an object of interest in the scene”, see also ¶81-112); and
(b) recognizing features in the image sets (¶78-113; “the systems and methods of the present disclosure can automatically extract and identify componentry present in the images and provide geometrical, topological, and semantic identification thereto … such recognized features can be those that are pertinent to damage, maintenance, and/or the functionality of a physical asset of”); and
(c) [claim 19: evaluation device] determining the positions and/or locations of the features using the position and location information of the images which comprise the features (¶150-153, 235; “The processing pipeline in this scenario can utilize the RGB imagery and the metadata attached to each image (i.e., location and orientation of the camera from GPS and gimbal readings) in order to establish correspondence among imagery and identify/label objects”; ¶83-113, 128; “can automatically extract and identify componentry present in the images and provide geometrical, topological, and semantic identification thereto … such recognized features can be those that are pertinent to damage, maintenance, and/or the functionality of a physical asset of”);
wherein the method further comprises (¶150-152; “The data acquisition plan … include flight plan instructions … that contains geographical coordinates and orientations of a series of locations that the UAV will need to fly to gather data (of physical asset)… The processing pipeline in this scenario can utilize the RGB imagery and the metadata attached to each image (i.e., location and orientation of the camera from GPS and gimbal readings) in order to establish correspondence among imagery and identify/label objects”), and/or
wherein step (c) further comprises:
establishing a plurality of geometrical auxiliary constructions, the geometrical auxiliary constructions being established for each image which comprises a feature (¶235; “system to convert at least some 2D data to 3D data using visual triangulation”), between
the position of the recording unit associated to the image and the position of a feature identified in the image (¶150-153, 235; establishing correspondence between imagery and sensor), or
the positions of several features identified in an image,
in a coordinate system (¶113, 131, 235; “Maintaining a map of 2D data to 3D geo-located data in the system and vice versa can be a useful tool to enable the system to convert at least some 2D data to 3D data using visual triangulation or point cloud indexing algorithms while being able to convert any 3D data to 2D data via perspective/orthographic/panoramic projection algorithms”); and
evaluating the geometrical auxiliary constructions to acquire an amount of results for the position and/or location of the feature or a feature derived from several features (¶81, 89-97, 106, 152, 241; “the output representation could include perspective/orthographic/panoramic projection of individual or all identified object boundaries, surface boundaries, deficiencies, object labels, topological elements, etc. onto individual or all imagery that contains a complete or partial view of the given target. While the projected data can be drawn on this imagery, the image set could also be sorted and presented according to multiple factors including but not limited to view angle, angle of triangulation, SSD, completeness, image blurriness, prediction confidence, object categories, image overlap, etc. On the other hand, the output representation could include 3D coordinates (or 3D bounding volume) of data identified in multiple overlapping 2D RGB or thermal imagery”); and
statistically evaluating the amount of results (¶61; “suitably generate output relevant to the information requested … for the one or more physical assets of interest can be generated by using a series of deterministic algorithms, heuristic algorithms, probabilistic algorithms, and/or machine learning models according to the given questions, inquiries, or requests, and existing constraints, such as sensor availability, … physical asset location/height/accessibility, etc”; ¶49, 60, 235-236, 240-241, 254-255; “image set could also be sorted and presented according to multiple factors including but not limited to view angle, angle of triangulation, SSD, completeness, image blurriness, prediction confidence, object categories, image overlap, etc. On the other hand, the output representation could include 3D coordinates (or 3D bounding volume) of data identified in multiple overlapping 2D RGB or thermal imagery”).
NOTE: Prior art need not read on the extension of (c), as ‘and/or’ renders it optional.
Fathi fails to specifically disclose wherein the method further comprises determining an orientation of the object by evaluating a reference position of the object and position information of the recording unit, the recording unit being positioned in correspondence with the orientation of the object at the time of recording the position information.
In related art, Zhou discloses wherein the method further comprises determining an orientation of the object by evaluating a reference position of the object and position information of the recording unit, the recording unit being positioned in correspondence with the orientation of the object at the time of recording the position information (Zhou ¶61-65; “step 120 may include: when the locked state is a first detection state representing any wind turbine blade vertically upward, comparing the spatial position information with the center point position information of the wind turbine hub, and determining the information of the blade area where the UAV is located when taking each image is one of the following: vertically upward blade area, lower left blade area, and lower right blade area”, Y state, “each locking state of the wind turbine blade corresponds to a different algorithm”), and/or.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the wind turbine hub reference position based state evaluation of Zhou into the methods of data acquisition and processing of Fathi to more accurately and cost effectively assess damage to physical assets (Fathi ¶128, 232-233), such as wind turbines. As stated by Fathi, “Inspection level detail can vary in context according to the type of inspection being undertaken and the physical asset or collection of physical assets of interest (Fathi ¶50, ¶61-62, 118, 190; “context-aware”).” Based on the spatial location information of the damaged wind turbine blade image and the information of the blade area, Zhou locates the damage to the wind turbine blade and obtains the damage location information (Zhou ¶68).
Consider claim 2, Fathi, as modified by Zhou, discloses the claimed invention wherein detecting several portions of the object is an optical detection (Fathi ¶74, 79, 153).
Consider claim 5, Fathi, as modified by Zhou, discloses the claimed invention further comprising: determining the reference position of the object by evaluating an amount of position information of the recording unit, wherein the amount of position information originates from a trajectory of movement of the recording unit (Zhou ¶56-60; Fathi ¶106).
Consider claim 6, Fathi, as modified by Zhou, discloses the claimed invention the method further comprising: determining at least one dimension of the object by evaluating a reference point of the object, and the position of one or more of the features (Fathi ¶81-112, 153, 191; Zhou ¶61-65).
Consider claim 7, Fathi, as modified by Zhou, discloses the claimed invention the method further comprising: determining the reference point of the object by placing the recording unit at the reference point and subsequently evaluating the position information of the recording unit (Fathi ¶131-132, 151, 188-191, Zhou ¶56-64).
Consider claim 8, Fathi, as modified by Zhou, discloses the claimed invention wherein the recording unit is a drone or a measuring device in combination with a drone (Fathi ¶74), configured
to generate the image sets (Fathi ¶74, 152-153, 188); and
to associate to each image the position and location information of the recording unit at the time of recording the respective image (Fathi ¶81-112, 151, 235).
Consider claim 9, Fathi, as modified by Zhou, discloses the claimed invention wherein the positions of the recording unit and the features comprise coordinates of a predetermined coordinate system (Fathi ¶128, 150-153, 235).
Consider claim 11, Fathi, as modified by Zhou, discloses the claimed invention wherein step (b) comprises recognizing the features in the image sets in an automated manner and/or step (c) comprises determining the positions and/or locations of the features in an automated manner (Fathi ¶113, 152, 235; Zhou ¶68).
Consider claim 12, Fathi, as modified by Zhou, discloses the claimed invention wherein the object is a wind turbine, the wind turbine comprising a tower, a nacelle, a hub, rotor blade flanges and rotor blades and a common rotation axis of the rotator blades (Fathi ¶30; Zhou FIGs. 3, 4); and
the method further comprising determining one or more parameters of the wind turbine based on the positions and/or locations of the features (Zhou ¶59-70).
Consider claim 17, Fathi, as modified by Zhou, discloses the claimed invention further comprising: generating or modifying a model or parametrizing a generic model of the object using the position and/or location information of the features (Fathi ¶149-153, 187, 192-193).
Consider claim 18, Fathi, as modified by Zhou, discloses a method for inspecting an object, comprising:
flying along the object along a path (¶73, 131, 188), and
detecting one or more portions of the object while flying (¶73, 131, 150-153, 188, 190),
wherein the path is based on a representation of the object by the features or parameters acquired by the method for detecting an object describable by a plurality of predetermined features (Fathi ¶118, 149-153) in accordance with the claimed invention.
Consider claim 20, Fathi, as modified by Zhou, discloses the claimed invention wherein the evaluation device is part of the recording unit (Fathi ¶146-153, 235-242).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fathi, in view of Zhou, as applied to claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-12, and 17-20 above, in further view of Maes (“Motion tracking of a wind turbine blade during lifting using RTK-GPS/INS”).
Consider claim 10, Fathi, as modified by Zhou, fails to specifically disclose employing a real-time kinematics, RTK, system for correcting the position and location information of the recording unit.
In related art, Maes discloses employing a real-time kinematics, RTK, system for correcting the position and location information of the recording unit (Maes Abstract, 2.1; RTK).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the tracking using RTK of Maes into the inspection method of Fathi, as modified by Zhou, to improve accuracy of the information collected by the recording unit (Fathi ¶3, 6). RTK is used to correct data obtained from an inertial navigation system (Maes Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shihavuddin (“Wind Turbine Surface Damage Detection by Deep Learning Aided Drone Inspection Analysis”).
US 2014/0168420 A1 discloses a method for inspecting a surface area.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY HYTREK whose telephone number is (703)756-4562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steve Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASHLEY HYTREK/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665